Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Ding

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.32 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.4.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Market Committee, Ding. -----Appellant. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh dated 25.5.2010 in ITA No.428/Chd./2010 for theassessment year 2007-08 claiming following substantial questionof law:- “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in holdingthat the expenditure of Rs.9,56,027/- claimed tohave been contributed to HSAM Board understatutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of thePunjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 isallowable without appreciating that no evidenceof the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in holdingthat the expenditure of Rs.9,56,027/- claimed tohave been contributed to HSAM Board understatutory obligation by virtue of Section 27 of thePunjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 isallowable without appreciating that no evidence 3. could be produced by the assessee to provethat such expenditure was actually incurred andwhether such contribution can be treated to fallwithin the ambit of application of income forcharitable purposes as defined in section 2(15)of the Income-tax Act?” Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inholding that the depreciation on fixed asset isallowable in the case of charitabletrust/institution particularly when the income iscomputed as per provisions of sections 11 to 13of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as question ofdepreciation does not arise when capitalexpenditure is also considered as application ofincome of the assessee and there remains noassets/WDV for claim of depreciation? Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inlaw in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) to allowdouble deduction on depreciation when capitalexpenditure on the asset has already beenallowed in the light of the Apex Court’s decisionin Escorts Limited Vs UOI (199-ITR-43) to theeffect that in the absence of clear statutoryindication to the contrary, the statute should notbe read as to permit an assessee twodeductions on same expenditure.of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified inlaw in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) to allowdouble deduction on depreciation when capitalexpenditure on the asset has already beenallowed in the light of the Apex Court’s decisionin Escorts Limited Vs UOI (199-ITR-43) to theeffect that in the absence of clear statutoryindication to the contrary, the statute should notbe read as to permit an assessee twodeductions on same expenditure. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that asfor as question (1) is concerned, the same is covered against therevenue by judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 of 2010 inCIT v. Market Committee, Narwanaand as far asquestions (2) and (3) are concerned, the same are covered byjudgment of this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.535 of 2009The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnalv. MarketCommittee, Pipli Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 08, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE